What is the spatial link between the Roman civilisation and cultural landscape in Romania?

Abstract

Exploring the dimensions of landscape history, particularly those reflected in the present spatial reconfiguration, requires the use of models to facilitate its evaluation. Considering heritage as a contemporary production result, in this paper the traces of Roman colonisation in the landscape are apprehended in regard to the present time. More precisely, we focused on the southern Romanian territory which was located at the periphery of the Roman Empire at the time of its maximum extent. Its peculiarity is that, even though it experienced a rather short organisation under the Roman administration, clear spatial traces emerge in the present cultural landscape. The identification of visible landmarks within the landscape was achieved through a combined framework of ancillary documents, cartographic material and archaeological gazetteer data, in an interdisciplinary attempt to produce a spatial correlation between the historical territorial planning and the present landscape. Thus, the most important results of the study include modelling the spatial pattern of Roman continuity in the present landscape.

Keywords:

• Romania
• cultural landscape
• landscape history
• archaeological sites

1. Introduction

The relevance of studying reminiscent landscapes is related to understanding the present significance of past experiences with the territory (Spencer, 2011, p. 48) and to delineating the spatial pattern of archaeological sites in accordance to the geographical context. Since landscape represents the interaction between humans and their environment (Cosgrove, 1985, p. 46), thus reflecting the cultural evolution of man through history, it bears the mark of ancient land uses and spatial organisations.

The Roman colonisation is referred by archaeologists as a dramatic transformation of local cultures and landscapes, especially through territorial reorganisation. This was achieved under the Roman rule and emerged in the provincial landscapes (Wells, 1999, p. 95). In Netherlands, the interpretation of ancient Roman infrastructure is given considerable attention through an increasing cooperation between historical geographers, archaeologists and architectural historians who have developed a method known under the term of biography of landscape (Renes, 2007, p. 2).

The historical perspective on the Roman Empire is that of the world's first globalisation force that linked cultures, economic and political systems (Wells, 1992). The drivers acting on the Roman expansion could be considered strategic ones, as the necessity to reinforce the border against the barbarian attacks, the access to new resources and markets for product distribution (Woolf, 1998).

The Roman Empire extended on much of the contemporary state of Romania through two provinces: Dacia and Moesia Inferior. Dacia's conquest determined the relocation of the Empire's border north of Danube River, on the Carpathian range. Also, Romans could not overlook the golden-silver deposits from Dacia. Therefore, ‘the pattern of military deployment and colonisation [ … ] was also well organised to take advantage of the region's rich natural resources’ (Haynes & Hanson, 2004, p. 18) that became one of the ‘major reasons for the two large military expeditions by the Romans at the beginning of the 2^nd century AD’ (Ciugudean, 2012, p. 222). Therefore, in 101 AD, Emperor Trajan came to war with the Dacians and after the second campaign (105–106 AD) occupied their territory. The memorial columns that were built during the reign of Trajan (98–117 AD) across Europe are valuable sources of information about Roman perception of local people (Wells, 1999, p. 105). The province was abandoned in the second half of the third century AD. Despite its rather short organisation under the Roman administration, the Romanian territory is embedded with significant elements that constitute the Roman cultural landscape (Oltean, 2007, p. 1).

The paper's objective is to create a spatial representation of Roman landscape elements (roads, limes, settlements, land use patterns) that model the current spatial identity. Even though the Roman administration influenced the study area at the climax of the Empire's expansion, its legacy is the most enduring in the landscape of all the ancient civilisations, an aspect to be considered in future territorial planning policies.

The legacy of the Roman civilisation is easily recognisable in the Central and Eastern European's cultural landscape, considering that fortresses, camps, towns and roads employed with little variation the same technique and design (Renes, 2007, p. 1). Thus, three elements are emphasised in this paper and represented in the map: the roads and defensive structures that allowed passing through the landscape, the settlement system and the continuity of Roman organisation in the present spatial reconfiguration.

1.1. Passing through the Roman landscape, roads and limes

The most enduring constructions of the Roman culture remain the roads and fortification systems (limes). Roman roads sustained the settlement system and military control in the occupied provinces and continued to play a commercial role during the medieval period up to present days (Toda, 2007). We now know that Romans frequently used river systems to move troops and materials along their frontiers. Moreover, the remains of wooden ships in Danube River indicate the advanced technology employed in crossing large rivers (Wells, 1999, p. 8).

Another impressive construction from that period is the limes stretching between Danube and the Black Sea shore which consisted of several lines of defence (Opriş, 2006). In the acceptance of a fortified frontier, the limes marked the limit of the Empire's territory. In fact, in Romanian language the term limes has an equivalent in limită (Romanian language) meaning limit or margin. The most enduring limes were made out of stone and consisted in a concentration of camps, roads, defensive ditches, being constructed along natural discontinuities like river courses or mountains. In the field, the defensive walls or vallum (Bogdan-Cătăniciu, 1997, p. 86) can be easily mistaken for a geomorphologic landscape element, as in the case of Trajan's vallum in Dobrogea. A village which is located in its proximity took the name Valu lui Traian (Trajan's Wall) that was officially imposed in order to point out this significant heritage from the Roman period, even though it is a young toponym which was established after 1924.

1.2. Living in the Roman landscape, the settlement system

Many Romanian cities have a nucleus of Roman ruins that represent one of the most visible cultural artefacts of the classical period. The city is featured as ‘the backbone of the Roman Empire’, its absence being a ‘historical impossibility’ (Laurence, Esmonde Cleary, & Sears, 2011, p. 2) and its sustainability had to be guaranteed through enduring building materials. This is the reason why the present heritage list of Roman monuments is mostly formed of urban settlements and fortifications, these being the largest sites that lasted during the barbarian migration flows that followed the Roman withdrawal in 275 AD.

1.3. Landscape continuity after the Roman withdrawal

The British archaeologist Bradley (2002) drew attention upon the infrastructure's situation after the fall of the Roman Empire. His research followed the past in the past direction through which he set to uncover the continuity of the towns and roads or aqueducts, long after their original construction. Laurence et al. (2011, p. 7) observed that the fall of Roman power did not imply the definite lost of the urban system, considering that some ancient cities later developed in economic and political centres. They have been reedited under a certain form during the medieval period and especially after Renaissance. The economic and geographic value of the territory assigned it a continuous function through re-using the settlement patterns and trade routes (Renes, 2007, p. 2). In the case of the Romanian territory the towns which have been created during the Roman occupation changed either into rural settlements in the modern age or flourished up to nowadays as cities and metropolis.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study area

In this study we covered the territory located between the Black Sea, Danube River and south of the Transylvanian Alps, on 92,300 km². It superposes on the historical regions of Oltenia, Muntenia and Dobrogea. We focused on three historical Romanian regions that experienced a certain spatial organisation during the Roman colonisation. The first region is Dobrogea which was part of Moesia Inferior, in the lower basin of Danube River. Moesia Inferior superposed on the territories occupied by ancient Greek colonies that developed in proximity to Pontvs Evxinvs (the Black Sea) (Preda, 1996).

Secondly, the last two regions (Oltenia and Muntenia) were included in the former province of Dacia which was annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan in 106 AD and initially was a single administrative unit. At the beginning of the Roman organisation, Oltenia was partially included in this province while Muntenia became part of Moesia Inferior. After Trajan's death in 118 AD, Emperor Hadrian established the new borders in order to strengthen and to consolidate the Empire's position against the barbarian's attacks. Thus Muntenia was devised between Dacia Inferior and the territory from outside the Empire's border (Pippidi, 1976, p. 398).

2.2. Data sets

The database produced during this study included data regarding the national historical monuments and the archaeological sites. These data were obtained from the Ministry of Culture and National Patrimony and also from the Institute for Cultural Memory in Bucharest (2012). The information regarding the archaeological sites was gathered from the National Archaeological Record of Romania (RAN) which was established in 2003, since then it has been inventorying sites in order to manage them, to protect and valorise the national heritage. Its purpose is to locate the archaeological heritage in order to evaluate the areas where vestiges are most vulnerable to risk factors like urban sprawl and uncontrolled tourism. From this collection of data we selected those sites that were associated to the Roman period and are located in our three study sites.

Another source of information used in this study is the cartographic material. The first map we used is represented by Tabula Peutingeriana which is an itinerary of the Empire's routes with no geographic coordinates and drawn using the Roman foot measuring unit (Stephenson, 2013, p. 89). It dates back to the third century and was discovered in 1507. A medieval copy that employs six colours is being kept at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Austrian National Library) and 11 original segments are available online on Euratlas (2012). Dacia and Moesia Inferior are included in the seventh segment of map. The second map covers the beginning of the nineteen century, it is a topographic military plan called Planurile Directoare de Tragere with the scale 1:20,000 and in Lambert–Cholesky projection which was available for study at the Romanian Academy. For the recent period we used the map produced by the Department of Military Topography in 1970 at the scale of 1:100,000, in Stereo'70 projection. Finally, a better understanding of the landscape was offered by orthophotomaps produced by the Romanian National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration using the flights from April 2008, at the scale 1:1000 (aerial photography's scale was 1:6000) and 20 cm resolution.

This cartographic material provides better comprehension of the relation between landscape elements. Aerial photography in particular is a suitable method for the modern archaeological prospection which is now taking advantage of the increased accessibility of satellite imagery (Oltean & Abell, 2012, p. 293). In fact, aerial photography has been used sporadically for almost a century in Romanian archaeology, starting with C. Schuchhardt, in 1918. However, the first programme of aerial reconnaissance for archaeological research was developed between 1998 and 2004, under the coordination of Prof. W.S. Hanson and Dr. I.A. Oltean in western Transylvania (Oberländer-Târnoveanu & Bem, 2009, p. 66), followed since 2004 by a complex aerial survey of the archaeological landscape of southern Dobrogea (Oltean & Hanson, 2013, p. 316).

Once the archaeological sites, Roman monuments and constructions, were extracted from the cIMeC database, the National Heritage List and the cartographic material, they were illustrated on three maps. We created a template in ArcGis 10 for each region that includes the region's limit and a uniform symbolisation of the Roman landscape elements. According to the function in the whole landscape, archaeological sites were classified in: (1) urban settlements, (2) defensive constructions, (3) Roman roads, (4) other Roman constructions. The sites were selected according to their relevance in the general territorial planning, without addressing finer details like architecture and site's state of survival which are specific to the micro level of the geographical landscape.

We created three spatial models (Main Map) representing the distribution of ancient vestiges according to the favourability or constraints of the geographical factors and the differentiated temporal ‘exposure’ to Roman colonisation, considering that

in any evaluation of Roman culture we must also take into account that this culture was the result of an evolution in time and it assimilated certain influences, particularly the Greek influence, during military conflicts or diplomatic, cultural and commercial contacts. (Bogdan-Cătăniciu, 2007, p. 117)

The first model is shaped as a network, overlapping Dobrogea region, which was influenced by the interaction with a pre-existing complex Greek infrastructure. The second model has a dispersed aspect that is specific to Muntenia region, the territory being rapidly abandoned during Hadrian, while the axis model is influenced by the alignment of Roman vestiges along the main rivers of Oltenia region that was part of Dacia Inferior.

The relevance of using spatial models in the case of three historical regions located on the territory of modern Romania is that it offers a simplified representation of the spatial organisation's form.

A spatial organisation can be defined as a more or less coherent group of places related to one another. This group is both differentiated and integrated into areas and networks (lines and points), in which there is a circulation of fluxes. (Brunet, 1993, p. 109)

The operational purpose is to explain the particular structure or landscape, in this case, of each historical region which cannot be translated or transposed to other forms of spatial organisation.

These spatial models could correlate to a differentiated intensity of place attachment and belonging for a local community using a landscape with Roman traces. Also, they could contribute to creating and implementing a database of integrated measures for cultural heritage conservation, valorisation and sustainable development in accordance to the communitarian principles.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. The network model in Dobrogea region

The spatial organisation form of Dobrogea is the expression of the region's geostrategic position within the Pontvs Evxinvs basin (Rădulescu & Bitoleanu, 1998, p. 75) that was the main attraction for intensive commercial relations (Ruscu, 2002). The connection between the network pattern and commerce was also investigated in the case of Danube River by P. Wells (2005), indicating that peripheral regions involved in exchange systems present a ‘dynamic and culturally heterogeneous character of the landscape’ (Wells, 2005, p. 49).

The basis for Roman territorial organisation in this region is represented by the Greek cities, considering that ‘for more than a half a century after the Danube border was established [ … ] in Moesia, the ancient Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast represented the only urban settlements.’ (Diaconescu, 2004, p. 88) The Greeks colonised the coast during the sixth century BC until year 46 AD when the region came under Roman control. The imprint of Roman colonisation is expressed in the landscape through a number of 44 sites that correspond to the classification in urban settlements, defensive constructions, Roman roads and other Roman constructions.

In the landscape are present ruins of 12 cities that formed the Roman urban structure. The large number of urban settlements attests an intense urbanisation of the province (Academia Română, 2010, pp. 327–328) both along the coast and in its interior. Seaside towns were supplied with water through the aqueducts which covered long distances (about 11 km between source and settlement) and used the natural slope (Papuc, 2009, p. 352). This system allowed the Roman settlements to spread throughout the province, even in areas with a high degree of aridity (e.g. Tropaevm Traiani). Another feature of the region is the natural transformations of the landscape that have decisively influenced the urban evolution and continuity. Thus, Halmyris Gulf (nowadays Razim-Sinoe lagoon complex) closed through barrier spits (Romanescu, 2013, p. 231) that lead to the depopulation of the northern cities during the seventh century AD and which were later forgotten (Vulpe & Barnea, 1968, p. 443) by generations of merchants who moved their activity in southern Dobrogea. These cities evolved into fisherman villages like present day Murighiol, in the proximity of Halmyris ruins. Until the archaeological explorations from 1981, the ancient cities were probably remembered only by the members of these fishermen communities, as part of their oral culture and the need for continuity (Misztal, 2003, p. 28).

The main changes of the landscape occurred in the periurban area. In Dobrogea, we distinguished traces of quarries for building stone (in central and northern parts of the province) and terracing around the cities. In addition, the main structural element of the city's hinterland (Doonan, 2006) was villa rustica (the large agricultural property) which contributed to the intense agrarian exploitation of the fertile lands of Dobrogea, around Callatis, Tomis and Capidava (Nicolae, 2002, p. 129). The exploitation of ancient copper mines, green shale and limestone meant that huge amounts of rock were dislocated and used in constructing roads, bridges, aqueducts and sewers. The present landscape also bears testimony of the local use of forest resources. Coniferous forests were used for shipbuilding and civil constructions (Hannestad, 2007, p. 86) thus proving the existence of significant forest areas in northern Dobrogea (Giurescu, 1976, pp. 20–21).

Tabula Peutingeriana illustrates two main roads in Dobrogea, the coast road on the axis Histria-Constantinople and a road along Danube River. Roads have been organised according to the crossing points towards the Carpathian region, while at the intersection of these axes were formed cities with economic and strategic role (e.g. Tropaevm Traiani). One hypothesis for the lack of wider traces of settlements along the Roman roads is the financial pressure on local people to care for these routes that led to the depopulation of the surroundings (Vulpe & Barnea, 1968, p. 144). On the orthophotomaps from April 2008, we identified three defensive walls (vallum) in the southern part of the province. The Roman origin is strongly confirmed in the case of two linear barriers, the Stone Wall and the Large Earthen Wall, based on the recent analysis of Hanson and Oltean (2012) who used historical photography and field data to prove their presence in the Roman frontier system.

In terms of continuity, during the four–seventh centuries AD these territories were reorganised and included in Scythia Minor province which became part of the Eastern Roman Empire. In Dobrogea, under Emperor Constantine the Great, the road system and cities were rebuilt, this being an argument for a more intense presence of Roman constructions in the present landscape (Academia Română, 2010, p. 503). Medieval cities were restored on the same site as the classical cities, due to the economic value of the territory and a particular inherited pattern of resource exploitation (Nicolae, 2002, p. 150), even though they suffered important damage during the extraction of massive stone quantities from their ruins which was reused in the construction of buildings or were processed in limestone kilns (Scurtu & Barnea, 2009). For example, the urban boom of Tomis (nowadays Constanţa), that reached the role of Metropolis, was not without echo in the current landscape of the region, the Greek–Roman city having continued its development to this day. Compared across time, Constanţa is the polarising centre of modern Dobrogea just as it was the ancient capital of the entire Scythia Minor region (Academia Română, 2010, p. 317).

Another example of continuity in territorial planning is the ample project of Trajan to shorten the link between Danube and the Black Sea by digging a navigable canal (Cuncev, 2010, p. 172). Early clear references to the canal were identified in the work of Claudius Aelianus (Botzan, 1984, p. 108). The Danvbivm – Pontvs Evxinvs canal was described by engineer A. Léger in 1875 (Botzan, 1984, p. 77), following the field observations of von Vinke in 1837 and German naturalist Karl Koch in 1843. The project was resumed and completed in the modern history of the region.

The efficient economic valorisation of this region was achieved by extending the matrix of settlements and roads from the periphery to the centre of the province which determined the current network arrangement of Roman imprints in Dobrogea's landscape.

3.2. The dispersed model in Muntenia region

Due to strategic and economic reasons Muntenia did not experience a significant Roman territorial organisation and urbanisation process (Academia Română, 2010, pp. 453–454). This situation indicates that in Muntenia there were no significant contributions of the Roman civilisation other from a military perspective. In addition, 37 archaeological sites that represent elements of the territorial infrastructure were indicated by the National Archaeological Record of Romania and dated back to the Roman occupation of Dacia.

Based on the cartographic material, we delineated a pattern of settlements and military elements at the contact between Muntenia and other Roman provinces, namely along rivers. The model of establishing borders on natural discontinuities was preferred by the Romans who had initially set the defence systems on the rivers Rhine and Danube in Europe and Euphrates in the East (Petolescu, 1995). Enclaves of Roman construction mainly occur on the border of Olt River, on this line being built 13 camps, behind limes Transalutanus (Bejan, 1998, p. 42). The barbarians, more precisely the Goths, occupied Muntenia after the Roman withdrawal and constructed over the previous Roman structures. Most cities in this region developed in the Middle Age (e.g. Bucharest) and have grown in importance after the Industrial Revolution.

In terms of Roman linear infrastructure (roads, streams of defence, limes, aqueducts) there are historical and cartographic evidences that limes Transalutanus had a length of 235 km but of which only small portions remain in the present landscape because it was abandoned and destroyed in 245 AD (Bejan, 1998, p. 41).

The forest density prevented the region's accessibility and could explain the dispersed presence of Roman sites. For example, the current territory of Romania's capital (Bucharest) was covered with dense forests which stretched north to the Carpathians and merged with the southern Danube floodplain forests (Giurescu, 1976, p. 20).

The historical landscape of Muntenia is mainly marked by post-Roman elements, specific to the Byzantine period. However, there are weak echoes of Roman traces found in the landscape. An interesting aspect is that most Roman monuments and archaeological sites have been found around Bucharest due to the archaeological digs that were conducted after 1990s (after the communist period) when the city expanded and more vestiges were found on new construction sites (highways, commercial units or suburban residences). The research of the archaeological sites in Muntenia is also delayed by the use of ‘most perishable materials-wood and earth’-in the construction of fortifications (Bogdan-Cătăniciu, 1997, p. 147).

The impact of ancient Roman civilisation on the current cultural landscape of Muntenia is much weaker than in other regions thus, the layout of archaeological sites is scattered in generating a spatial model of Roman influences.

3.3. The axis model of Oltenia region

The ‘axis model is basic to so many planning strategies’ since lines are ‘places of particular attraction (and therefore development)’ (Brunet, 1993, p. 117). Oltenia became part of the Roman Empire in 102 AD, following the peace concluded between Emperor Trajan and Decebalus. The region represented a transit area to the Carpathian Mountains on the valley of river Olt (Haynes & Hanson, 2004, p. 13). In this regard, it is noted the construction of three Roman roads towards the intra-Carpathian cores of gold–silver and salt resources (Vulpe & Barnea, 1968, p. 122). These axes coincide with the region's main rivers (Timiş-Cerna, Danube and Olt), along which camps and civilian settlements were built. These characteristics are reflected in the distribution of 26 sites that are associated to the Roman infrastructure in Oltenia.

The configuration of the settlement and road system is the result of the Roman Empire's interests to exploit the agricultural resources of the southern region and to transport it, together with the gold from Transylvania. Thus, urbanisation reached its peak in the second century, when three cities were developed near major water courses and acted as polarising centres for agricultural products from the many rural settlements and villae that developed on the right side of Olt River. The river was the north-south axis of Dacia and became a permanent strategic road along which many fortifications were built (Bogdan-Cătăniciu, 1997, p. 161). Linear landscape features determine a particular spatial organisation that is sometimes expressed by ‘contact metamorphism, sites being specialised as passages (bridges, passes and gates), bridgeheads, etc’ (Brunet, 1993, p. 117). In this perspective, the most significant sites of contact are the bridges of Svcidava and Drobeta. The bridge from Sucidava is absent from Tabula Peutingeriana, assuming that it was already abandoned when the itinerary was created (Bogdan-Cătăniciu, 2007, p. 70). On the other hand, Drobeta’s urban development was favoured by the proximity of the Danube Bridge, built by Apollodorus of Damascus. Even though it was abandoned by Hadrian around 120 AD, thus soon after the death of Trajan, the passage over the Danube from its proximity remained very important since Drobeta was shaped as colonie and had a surface of 200 ha (the civilian settlement) during its maximum development period, at a time when Londinium/ London had 130 ha (Nicolae, 2002, p. 129). On the other hand Romula (meaning Little Rome) became a municipium during Hadrian (Ardevan, 2000, p. 92) but it had a peripheral position in the province of Dacia. It is the only case of Roman toponymy (name derived from that of Rome), despite its Geto–Dacian origin (previously named Malva) (Petolescu, 2007, p. 178).

Roman roads in Oltenia converged to the economic and administrative centre of Dacia province, as partially illustrated on Tabula Peutingeriana. The region's geography raised difficulties in building the Roman roads, especially on the rocky slopes of mountain valleys in the Danube Gorges. The only evidence of ancient construction schemes are located on Tabula Traiana, a Roman memorial plaque located on the Serbian side of Danube River and facing the Romanian side. The road is no longer visible in the landscape because it is immersed in the waters of the Iron Gate reservoir. The roads were accompanied by major hydraulic projects, such as the partial deviation of the Danube River on a secondary course and the construction of Trajan's bridge at Drobeta (Light & Dumbrăveanu-Andone, 1997, p. 44). Another concentrator of Roman constructions in the current landscape is the limes Alutanus (Academia Română, 2010, p. 115; Bejan, 1998, p. 42), on the eastern outskirts of Oltenia region, where a series of fortifications have been rehabilitated.

Regarding the continuity of these landscape elements, after the Roman withdrawal (271–275 AD) and the migration of barbarian populations, they suffered significant damage, while cities gained a profound rural character, an example being Romvla. However, in today's landscape there is a perpetuation of the Roman model of cooperation between doublets cities in relation to the Danube axis (between Romania and Bulgaria), according to the ancient example of settlements in Dacia and Moesia (e.g. Svcidava–Oescus). Nevertheless, the traditional exploitation of agricultural resources developed over time and maintains its importance in the economy of the country. The pattern of agricultural resources exploitation within the polarisation area of cities and the configuration of roads or limes produced a linear distribution of Roman vestiges in the region's cultural landscape.

4. Conclusions

Our results show the existence of Roman traces in the present cultural landscape of modern Romania that can be mapped and analysed. In this paper, we attempted to present the link between ancient Roman traces in the landscape and the geographic background. We raised some questions regarding the correlation between archaeological sites and the intensity with which different regions express their Roman identity. From the cartographic materials, archaeological and national heritage records we extracted spatial models of Roman vestiges’ distribution in the landscape. We observed that there are clear regional disparities between the number and pattern of Roman landscape elements that were determined by geographical and political factors. However future research is required in order to clearly delineate for what reasons certain values are defined and who defines them. Up to this level, we can speculate that the higher concentration of these vestiges might lead to high sensation of uniqueness within a local community resulting in a common appreciation of its distinctive ties with a historical past (e.g. Dobrogea region). Therefore, further research will focus on how to include different groups in the process of defining values of the landscape. The mobilisation of people towards heritage conservation and protection is determined by the way individuals attach to a place and they represent it in a collective manner so that they can react unitary to changes in order to preserve and develop the community's symbol. The future governance of the landscape requires harmonising the preservation of historical dimensions with the needs of continued societal development and local empowerment. To conclude, this paper presented a method for mapping and analyzing remains from a certain historical era in present day landscapes, which would be very useful for heritage practitioners. This method will gain a stronger focus with the improvement of the spatiotemporal model that could include further historical strata from the pre-Roman landscape to the values of the modern landscape, in order to get a more comprehensive image of the present landscape and how societies following the Romans have built on their structures.

Software

In the database creation and for the generation of the spatial pattern of archaeological Roman sites in the cultural landscape, the ‘ESRI ArcGis 10’ software was used.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Ion Nicolae for useful observations and explanations concerning the Roman heritage in Romania. We wish to thank the three anonymous referees at the Journal of Maps for their constructive comments that contributed to improve the manuscript.